Eifion Rees (journalist, ecologist) joins group - welcome

[Herbert Eppel]

Eifion Rees (journalist, ecologist) hast just joined the group - welcome.

Regards

Herbert Eppel, Claverton co-moderator
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[Frank Holland]

On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 14:12 +0100, Herbert Eppel wrote:
>
> Eifion Rees (journalist, ecologist) hast just joined the group -
> welcome.

Herbert,

You welcome a (probably) Welshman, almost auf Deutch!

Frank

[Herbert Eppel]

Sehr peinlich, Entschuldigung :-[

Herbert

[Eifion Rees]

Hi all, vielen dank/diolch yn fawr for the welcome - would anyone with a nuclear/energy background like to go on the record with a few targeted quotes about why thorium isn't the great green hope its fans claim it is? I found your group discussion interesting but have also been impressed with what I've read from people like Kirk Sorensen, who seems to be the foremost pro-thorium guy out there. I am just a layman of course, but with so much positive stuff in the nationals recently about China and India forging ahead with this technology I'm keen to highlight some of the negatives.

E

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

[Neil Crumpton]

Eifion,

Helo, su' mae from Bethesda, Gwynedd. 

As the most recent former anti-nuclear campaigner for FOE (I moved on just over a year ago - after 16 years as a front line energy/ transport campaigner) I would be prepared to comment. I am now a consultant working to progress load-following fuel cells and CCS by the way.  Let me know if you are interested and I will prepare a few lines.

One thing I have been saying is that whatever the claimed benefits of Thorium and other Generation IV reactor technologies is that they are not currently available. What the UK public is being offered are two types of Generation III reactor designs and probably new proposals for MOX reprocessing of the legacy wastes stored at Sellafield. HM Government should defer any decisions on nuclear new-build until the early 2020s when much more will be known about the claimed benefits of safer waste-consuming Generation IV designs - and about the big alternatives of CCS and offshore wind. Build 5+ GW of CCS by 2020, and push for more than 13 GW of offshore wind by 2020 even given possible cost issues - as its building a UK industrial lead and manufacturing base (same with CCS). 

The Environmentalists for Nuclear Power article attached (I a not a member by the way and NOT very sympathetic with any nuclear) is however interesting. Forget MOX, put the waste through Gen IVs. So this group is promoting a different course to current DECC civil servants and UK industry thinking. A NNL report panned thorium technology (slightly baised maybe !?) see Claverton a few weeks back.

Mark Lynas has mentioned Gen IV claimed benefits in his support for nuclear - and this has been misleading in my view. Lets see them on the table first. I repeatedly say that CCS is far more proven than even Gen III reactors (ie CO2 has been stored in geological formations under North Sea for 14 years at Sliepner (or 140 million years for natural !), similar CO2 capture process has been routine in many respects for decades and pipeline transport is routine in US and elsewhere. In contrast, no 'high-burn-up' Gen III's are operational and the first Gen III's are in trouble at Finland and Flamanville and no HLW / spent  fuel repositories exist globally.

Neil

Neil Crumpton

[Herbert Eppel]

On 27.05.2011 15:48 UK Time, Neil Crumpton wrote:

> Environmentalists for Nuclear Power

A strong contender for the oxymoron of the century award, methinks!

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[James Birkin]

Not if tyou are interested in Molten Salt Reactors!!

> Environmentalists for Nuclear Power

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

--

[James Birkin]

Hi Eifion

 

I have had this argument and really no one has produced a good argument why not but if the heat the argument produced could be harnessed in a Rankine cycle - the problem might be solved.

 

I am at present forming a UK group of those who want the Molten Salt Thorium Reactor concept explored to see if it stands up to its claims - I believe it will. 

 

Are you interested?

 

 

Kind regards

 

James Birkin

 

From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eifion Rees
Sent: 27 May 2011 2:55 PM
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Eifion Rees (journalist, ecologist) joins group - welcome

 

Hi all, vielen dank/diolch yn fawr for the welcome - would anyone with a nuclear/energy background like to go on the record with a few targeted quotes about why thorium isn't the great green hope its fans claim it is? I found your group discussion interesting but have also been impressed with what I've read from people like Kirk Sorensen, who seems to be the foremost pro-thorium guy out there. I am just a layman of course, but with so much positive stuff in the nationals recently about China and India forging ahead with this technology I'm keen to highlight some of the negatives.

E

[Brendan McNamara]

James,

    Sorensen's Thorium site is doing a good job of familiarising people with the Throium story. There is a lot os spin in his presentations especially when talking about the Uranium-Plutonium cycle. However, it is a BLOG site and ~90% of the posts are off target or muddled in some way. Fine, it gets people involved.

 

     Eifion, you want to 'emphasise the negatives' which you will almost exclusively find on blog sites. You MUST read the Hargraves and Moir paper I sent to James which gives a very clear description of the technology, with very little spin, aand refers on to much deeper technical papers. You can then measure the negatives against what you actually KNOW. Otherwise you are just trawling the web to confirm your own uninformed opinions, just like Steve Conor, non-Science Editor of the Independent. You can also make life easier by spotting the uninformed bloggers and deleting their stuff on sight - or defusing viral nonsense by outing it in your work.

   

     The really big question about Thorium, and GT-MHR, and Fusion is why is their funding so low or non-existent when subsidies and R&D money for Coal, Oil Gas Wind and Solar are so large. We live in an age when the media mean just mobile phones in their Technology sections.

 

Brendan

Warmest regards

Brendan McNamara

77 Bath Hill Court, Bournemouth BH1 2HT

Home Phone: 01202 922123

Mobile: 07768748217

[James Birkin]

Brendan

 

I am very grateful for your help - separating spin from reality as always is key - that said I do think he is doing a good job on the publicity.

 

I will re-read the paper !!

 

Regards

 

 

James

[Peter Rowberry]

You say "The really big question about Thorium, and GT-MHR, and Fusion is why is their funding so low or non-existent when subsidies and R&D money for Coal, Oil Gas Wind and Solar are so large."

 

Comparing subsidies for energy production with money invested in research is comparing apples and pears and quite frankly is nonsense, especially when you consider the amount of public money that has gone into supporting the nuclear industry. This included £1 billion a year for 6 years, given in the 1990s to prepare the industry for privatisation, which Michael Heseltine said the the EU was to go on decommissioning (otherwise it would have been illegal state support), but all of which went on running costs and an estimated £1 billion a year for at least 70 years in decommissioning costs (see the NDA budget). Also the nuclear industry is set to get a windfall of around £3 billion between now and 2050 as a result of the proposed carbon floor pricing regime for doing absolutely nothing and not saving a single gram of carbon pollution! I am sure that the renewables sector would be happy to receive just a small percentage of that money for its research and proof of concept projects.

 

I am sure that this depends on how you wish to cut the cake, but fusion has been massively supported by research funding. In 2003 The EU wished to put around £200 million a year into cold fusion research and to develop the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pn192.pdf ) . In 2003 the estimated cost of ITER was around €5-6 billion. As of 13 July 2010, the total price of constructing the experiment is expected to be in excess of € 15 billion. Only a year earlier that estimate was € 10 billion. Prior to that, the proposed costs for ITER were € 5 billion for the construction and € 5 billion for maintenance and the research connected with it during its 35 year lifetime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER). As James has been at pains to point out, Thorium is not a new technology and I am not sure why any further research is necessary. What is there to prove with when a working reactor was developed so long ago?

 

The pro-nuclear lobby is begging for even more funding, while my hospital services are below standard and my libraries are being closed! Maybe the industry should divert some of the millions it spends on public relations and image management into doing more R&D themselves?

[Herbert Eppel]

On 30.05.2011 08:34 UK Time, Peter Rowberry wrote:

> The pro-nuclear lobby is begging for even more funding, while my
> hospital services are below standard and my libraries are being closed!
> Maybe the industry should divert some of the millions it spends on
> public relations and image management into doing more R&D themselves?

On that note, I find EDF's London Olympics sponsorship TV adverts
sickening, to be quite frank.

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[Dave McGrath]

Hmm...

as the clamour for nuclear seems to grow, I heard on Radio 4 this morning
that the 7 nuclear reactors shut down in response to Fukishima will remain
closed and every other nuclear plant in Germany will close by 2022.

What do the Germans know that we do not. As the elder statesman of economic
performance, engineering and manufacturing and everything else in science
and engineering, perhaps we could head their concerns

Yours Sincerely,
Dave McGrath
 
 
Managing Director
ReGenTech Ltd
Renewable Energy, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Power Solutions
 
Office and Registered office. Mill of Craibstone, Craibstone Estate
Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 9TB
<http://www.regentech.co.uk/>
Company Number SC211438
 
Tel +44 (0)1224 715568;  Mobile +44 (0)7768 230 451
d...@regentech.co.uk
Skype: Davejmcg
 
The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may
be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If
you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this
e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and
destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to
the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Herbert Eppel
Sent: 30 May 2011 08:45
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Thorium!

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

--

[Frank Holland]

And the so called "safety checks" on all EU nukes EXCLUDE terrorist
attacks because the UK wanted that exclusion.....what does that tell
us!!

Frank

[Herbert Eppel]

Quite. See also
<http://herbeppel.blogspot.com/2011/03/i-have-non-nuclear-dream.html>

Switzerland is the latest country to see the light - see
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/nuclear-power-loses-appeal-japan>

Regards

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

On 30.05.2011 09:14 UK Time, Dave McGrath wrote:
> Hmm...
>
>
> as the clamour for nuclear seems to grow, I heard on Radio 4 this morning
> that the 7 nuclear reactors shut down in response to Fukishima will remain
> closed and every other nuclear plant in Germany will close by 2022.
>
> What do the Germans know that we do not. As the elder statesman of economic
> performance, engineering and manufacturing and everything else in science
> and engineering, perhaps we could head their concerns
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> Dave McGrath
>
>
> Managing Director
> ReGenTech Ltd

> Renewable Energy, Hydrogen& Fuel Cell Power Solutions

[Herbert Eppel]

And by the way, the Greenpeace banner on the Brandenburg Gate in the
Guardian article says "Each day with nuclear power is one too many".

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[Frank Holland]

On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 14:55 +0100, Eifion Rees wrote:
> Hi all, vielen dank/diolch yn fawr for the welcome - would anyone with
> a nuclear/energy background like to go on the record with a few
> targeted quotes about why thorium isn't the great green hope its fans
> claim it is? I found your group discussion interesting but have also
> been impressed with what I've read from people like Kirk Sorensen, who
> seems to be the foremost pro-thorium guy out there. I am just a layman
> of course, but with so much positive stuff in the nationals recently
> about China and India forging ahead with this technology I'm keen to
> highlight some of the negatives.

Eifion,

Your starting point could be the ethics of leaving the nuclear wastes
for future generations to deal with while this generation gets the power
and profits. Maybe we should take a similar view to the Iroquois, since
before the traditional Iroquois convened their consul meetings, they
invoked this declaration : In our every deliberation we must consider
the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.

Thereafter, any vote included an equal vote cast by a representative who
spoke specifically for the needs, the survival, and the dignity of those
who would live a hundred and fifty years in the future. For the
Iroquois, the generational format of their council defined a longterm
relationship between government and ecology. The rights of future
generations never became an issue of policy because it was, instead, the
very context of policy.

But of course we need to go beyond 7 generations to maybe 777, since the
waste will still be active for about 250,000 years.

So is it ethical to load so many future generations with the hazards
just to suite our unsustainable life style.

And don't let the thorium addicts bamboozle you with the so called less
waste than uranium reactors....they want to build hundreds of these
reactors, so the total waste will be the same or higher.

You will meet the stone wall that nuclear proponents do not do ethics!

Frank

[James Birkin]

There is a lot to do in that it has to be proved and tested - the reactor worked but was small and we have moved on a lot now.

 

The design Kirk Sorensen is proposing to build is a core and blanket which is different  and hopefully an improvement on the single fluid design in the sixties.

 

I am actually sceptic and certainly not blind to important issues - it is just that the sooner we test the theories the sooner we will know if this is another blind alley or not.

 

The nuclear people's arguments seem to be that Thorium because it needs testing and designing to a commercial scale is too far away to be of interest.  They do not actually seem to address the alleged benefits of the MSR technology with Thorium.    That same argument (too far in the future) could have been applied to the current unsatisfactory nuclear technology once, but it did not deter then.

 

I think fusion is very far away - molten salt reactors can and have worked.  Weinberg saw the dangers of PWR technology years back and was vilified because he rejected his own invention (PWR) in favour of MSRs.

 

Kirk Sorensen is a very good speaker - and of course that is dangerous because he can make things look seductive.  That said so far I have seen nothing to say he is wrong.

 

The MSR would be very cheap compared to other solutions as it does not need a pressure vessel and the re-processing infrastructure would be un-necessary.  Far less waste or fuel would need to be moved around - and if they can be made small then far less infrastructure needs to be built for power.  It is also intrinsically safe ( I was going to use the word failsafe - but because of the film I will refrain!)  It is a heck of a prize if true and surely we must give it a fari chance.

 

That is all I am saying - just treat it seriously and, given what it purport to offer - do this now.

 

James

 

From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Rowberry
Sent: 30 May 2011 8:35 AM
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Thorium!

 

You say "The really big question about Thorium, and GT-MHR, and Fusion is why is their funding so low or non-existent when subsidies and R&D money for Coal, Oil Gas Wind and Solar are so large."

[James Birkin]

At the risk of repeating Frank, this is one of the selling points in favour
of the technology - the waste is far far less in quantitiy and far less
radio toxic

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Holland
Sent: 30 May 2011 10:49 AM
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Eifion Rees (journalist, ecologist) joins group - welcome

Eifion,

Frank

[Frank Holland]

Eifion,

You can get a massive amount of information on thorium reactors at
http://energyfromthorium.com/pdf/ if you look at Pt11, chapter 15 you
will see that there are considerable problems to overcome even in the
heat transfer stage, because the molten salt is radioactive.

A very useful source of information, which merits careful study as
opposed to a quick glossing over.

Frank

On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 14:55 +0100, Eifion Rees wrote:

[Peter Rowberry]

OK, there may be work to do, but Brendan's claim that nuclear technologies should receive more support because of the level of subsidies and R&D for renewables is clearly stretching credibility. R&D into nuclear has been far higher than R&D into renewables. It is difficult to unravel what has gone where, especially as funding can be in the form of tax relief as well as direct funding from research councils. The 2009 figures from the Office of National Statistics say that £62 million funding has been allocated by the Energy Technologies Institute for research into renewables, with £100 million already allocated for projects in development. Although there may be other projects funded through the research councils, I understand that this is the major source of funding into renewable energy. Compare this with the £15 billion of UK and EU funding into fusion, which Brendan claimed was underfunded compared with renewables. For more details of how government funds science and why it is difficult to say what has been spent on what without analysing individual projects, see http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/science/docs/a/10-1356-allocation-of-science-and-research-funding-2011-2015.pdf

 

I am sure that Kirk will be looking into funding streams from the established sources, but please don't whine about needing more money and campaign instead for the money already allocated to the sector to be more wisely spent.

[Peter Rowberry]

I do not necessarily ascribe an ulterior motive to this. It could be that by
analysing the threat of terrorist attack we may be making public the
information which could inspire one! There may be a good reason for leaving
this to secret squirrel. On the other hand .....

We are innundated with EdF PR material in our area; "we will consider
funding a road scheme", "we will fund an apprentiship centre", "we give away
free education packs to schools", "we are the only low carbon generator to
provide base load","nuclear power is safer than coal mining" etc. I just
regard these things as weaknesses in the market and I cannot get too upset
by them. I just have to beg to get a tenthousandth of their PR budget for
the organisations I help and to try and redress the balance just a little
bit.

For information, we can also add Switzerland to Germany and Italy among the
growing number of European countries who have rejected nuclear power.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Holland" <frankh...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>

[dave andrews]

According Dave Elliot half euopean r and d goes to nuclear.............

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885
+ 44 (0) 1225 8379781

 

 

[Dave Elliott]

In the IEA countries ( thats most of them)  most energy R&D funding has gone to nuclear fission over the years, and to fusion, and countries to do so- about half the UK energy R&D budget goes to fusion.  Renewables are the very poor relation

--
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).

[David Hirst]

I gather the official reason for not including the risk of terrorism attack
is that there is considered no way of assessing its probability. Whereas the
probability of a plane landing on the reactor building can be assessed! I
have heard that the biggest risk is not a 747 (or 380), but a fighter plane.
Much much denser, and, possibly, a lot faster. One can assess the
probability of a tsunami, or a tornado.
One can also assess the probability of a multiple serious failure - like
transmission lines and backup generators - but that does not ensure it will
be protected.
If you are at war, can you defend against a bomb. Would bombing be
terrorism?
The war, as fought in the Second World War, cannot be repeated, as I doubt
very much if either we, or our enemies, could resist the prospect of bombing
a nuke. Of course, one will need to assess which direction the wind is
blowing (and will blow), or it might do the wrong country harm. It was this
misdirection of target that, I understand, lead to mustard gas being banned.
It was just too random.
Now which is easier. Banning the nuke power stations, or forming a treaty
that bans bombing of them?
David Hirst
Mobile: +44 7831 405443

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Rowberry

[Frank Holland]

On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 17:26 +0100, Dave Elliott wrote:
>
> 30052011_172334_0.png
> In the IEA countries ( thats most of them) most energy R&D funding
> has gone to nuclear fission over the years, and to fusion, and
> countries to do so- about half the UK energy R&D budget goes to
> fusion. Renewables are the very poor relation
>

Thanks, Dave. Does your data include the EU RTD programmes which always
have a big lump for nuclear, eg 7th programme says "The Council Decision
2006/970/Euratom of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework
Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear
research and training activities (2007 to 2011) [PDF] includes a budget
of EUR 2 751 million to be spent over five years (2007-2011).

2,7 billion on renewables would be nice!

Frank

[Dave Elliott]

energy-disc...@googlegroups.com writes:

I assume so.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.

To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

[Eifion Rees]

Thanks everyone for your input, I'm contacting a few of you separately to elucidate a few comments but I appreciate you taking the time to give me your thoughts.

Can I ask for a few quick observations about who is pushing thorium and why? Obviously the nuclear industry as we currently know it has little reason to do things differently given the many lucrative revenue streams based on current technology, but who stands to gain if thorium reactors are adopted? Presumably India, outside the non-prolif treaty, will be mighty interested in exporting its technology/expertise if this takes off there. Kirk Sorensen has just founded his own thorium company too, possibly backed by his previous employer Teledyne Brown...

E

[Dave Elliott]

Why? I guess its all part of the 'high tech can rescue us' silver bullet syndrome. Whereas most if us are ll too aware how complicated it is to  develop and deploy even medium scale  new tech- nearly as hard as changing society and values!

[James Birkin]

Sadly except in China it seems nobody is currently backing it -

 

Who stands to gain? - we all do if the claims are well founded - and I suspect the investors in whatever turns out to be the successful technology.

 

The ubiquity of Thorium should keep the price down and the fact that it should be all consumed in a MSR - so I doubt the countries with Thorium in abundance will necessarily do very well.

 

It will be the patent holders - and at the moment my money is on China

 

 

 

 

From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eifion Rees

Sent: 31 May 2011 12:16 PM
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Thorium!

[James Birkin]

Why can we not look at the tech (which is rather less hi tech than present - just a path not travelled ) AND try and reduce our demands?

 

As for how much is going where - I am not sure why this is so important when one is talking about pure R and D -  surely the question is whether it is going to where it is most needed - and where it can bring the greatest return (in the widest sense) whatever the technology -

 

Regards

 

 

James

--